Applications of artificial intelligence (AI) bear great transformative potential in the economic, technological and social sectors, impacting especially future work environments. Ethical regulation of AI requires a relational understanding of the technology by relevant stakeholder groups such as researchers, developers, politicians, civil servants, affected workers or other users applying AI in their work processes. The purpose of this paper is to support relational AI discourse for an improved ethical framing and regulation of the technology. The argumentation emphasizes a widespread reembodied (...) understanding of AI technology as critical requirement for capable ethical and regulatory frameworks. A sociotechnical perspective encourages the material interpretation of AI as reembodied adaptation of biological intelligence. Reviewing Cartesian dualism as motivating the disembodiment of human intelligence for its transfer to machines, the argumentation develops an integrated embodiment concept of AI in its mechanistic, naturalistic, combined AI and neuroethical, and relational contexts. This concept is discussed in relation to basic phenomenological and postphenomenological assumptions, and is applied to the example of AI-based neurotechnology potentially disrupting future work processes. Strengthening a human-centered approach, the presented concept for a reembodied understanding of AI technology enables better integrated ethical and regulatory debates, and improves social discourse and human agency in developing and regulating AI technology. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence is shaping strategy, activities, interactions, and relationships in business and specifically in marketing. The drawback of the substantial opportunities AI systems and applications provide in marketing are ethical controversies. Building on the literature on AI ethics, the authors systematically scrutinize the ethical challenges of deploying AI in marketing from a multi-stakeholder perspective. By revealing interdependencies and tensions between ethical principles, the authors shed light on the applicability of a purely principled, deontological approach to AI ethics in marketing. To (...) reconcile some of these tensions and account for the AI-for-social-good perspective, the authors make suggestions of how AI in marketing can be leveraged to promote societal and environmental well-being. (shrink)

Artificial intelligence (AI) has attracted an increasing amount of attention, both positive and negative. Its potential applications in healthcare are indeed manifold and revolutionary, and within the realm of medical imaging and radiology (which will be the focus of this paper), significant increases in accuracy and speed, as well as significant savings in cost, stand to be gained through the adoption of this technology. Because of its novelty, a norm of keeping humans “in the loop” wherever AI mechanisms are deployed (...) has become synonymous with good ethical practice in some circles. It has been argued that keeping humans “in the loop” is important for reasons of safety, accountability, and the maintenance of institutional trust. However, as the application of machine learning for the detection of lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) in this paper’s case study reveals, there are some scenarios where an insistence on keeping humans in the loop (or in other words, the resistance to automation) seems unwarranted and could possibly lead us to miss out on very real and important opportunities in healthcare—particularly in low-resource settings. It is important to acknowledge these opportunity costs of resisting automation in such contexts, where better options may be unavailable. Using an AI model based on convolutional neural networks developed by a team of researchers at NUH/NUS medical school in Singapore for automated detection and classification of the lumbar spinal canal, lateral recess, and neural foraminal narrowing in an MRI scan of the spine to diagnose LSS, we will aim to demonstrate that where certain criteria hold (e.g., the AI is as accurate or better than human experts, risks are low in the event of an error, the gain in wellbeing is significant, and the task being automated is not essentially or importantly human), it is both morally permissible and even desirable to kick the humans out of the loop. (shrink)